See this provocative article, saying that it is not completely unlikely that the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 might again poll the most popular votes, yet fail to win the electoral college.
See this provocative article, saying that it is not completely unlikely that the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 might again poll the most popular votes, yet fail to win the electoral college.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas is about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy minority rule.
The EVIL bastard MORONS in the States let the EVIL *system* continue since 1788.
Democracy NOW –
Uniform definition of Elector in the U.S.A.
P.R. for all legislative body elections.
Approval Voting for executive and judicial offices.
Vote for 1 or more, highest wins.
Otherwise – get ready for Civil WAR II.
According to Rasmussen Reports, the opposite is currently true: McCain leads Obama (and Clinton), but the Dems are ahead in states with 284 electoral votes, without even counting any tossups.
The author falsely claims that the Senate decides who becomes president if there is a tie in the EC. The House decides who becomes President (each state delegation getting one vote each) and the Senate decides who becomes Vice President.
This is Huffington Post where the writers are pretty retarded. It’s a shame that Ballot Access is now linking to Huffington Post articles.
This article is based on too many faulty premises, and complete absurdities like the idea that McCain could win states like New Hampshire. I think Republican strength in the EC is greatly inflated.
The entire premise of the article is false. I would not consider a plurality, a popular vote victory. If anything the popular vote would be against the plurality winner. For example Bill Clinton won plurality with 43%, but its a stretch to say he was the popular vote winner.
I do think the article brings forth a real problem with Obama though. Ohio, just had a poll in which 13% will go for Nader if their preferred candidate does not get the nomination. I imagine in Ohio, although not nationwide, many of those Democrats are Clinton supporters.
A link to an article does not necessarily imply approval of an article. It just means that the article is likely to be interesting to readers. The very fact that Huffington Post (which has a huge readership) ran this article, may cause Democratic state legislators to be more in favor of the National Popular Vote Plan bills. The National Popular Vote Plan bills would already have passed in 22 states by now, if Democrats would stick together, but some Democratic legislators always vote against it.
As to the meaning of “popular vote winner”, in a system with no run-off of any kind, I assert the popular vote winner is the person who got the most votes. It’s just a matter of vocabulary practice.
I would much rather see IRV than the national popular vote.